Australian Open 2016 SF - [1] Djokovic vs. [3] Federer

[veroniquem]

Honestly, do you really care about Dubai and Cincy when he's busy making mincemeat out of him and everybody else at the Slams?

Cincy is a legit concern. It's a master after all and the only one Djoko has never won but Dubai???? It's sort of Fed's home tournament (along with Basel) and it's a minor event. Who on earth cares? Djoko2011 has such weird reactions sometimes. It's like when Djoko achieves something great, he's looking for tiny details to still worry/or get anxious over...

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Federer's serve was just awful. Awful net approaches.

Especially the net approaches. I've never seen him do that many, that bad approaches. Djoko could pass him with big margin. Sometimes he even realised midway to the net that it was the wrong choice and started to hesitate and ended up in no mans land.

Really bad. Maybe that's because of no more Edberg. But...

 

[Mainad]

Cincy is a legit concern. It's a master after all and the only one Djoko has never won but Dubai???? It's sort of Fed's home tournament (along with Basel) and it's a minor event. Who on earth cares? Djoko2011 has such weird reactions sometimes. It's like when Djoko achieves something great, he's looking for tiny details to still worry/or get anxious over...

He's a chronic pessimist like me. It's a Brit thing!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Especially the net approaches. I've never seen him do that many, that bad approaches. Djoko could pass him with big margin. Sometimes he even realised midway to the net that it was the wrong choice and started to hesitate and ended up in no mans land.

Really bad. Not are of that's because of no more Edberg. But...

See post #3376

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal utilized what Borg did but with a modern equipment.

Who was the player, who first utilized the new technology to the best in the same way that Nadal later also used?

I don't think anyone had used spin to the extent and with the degree of efficiency that Nadal did beforehand.

 

[veroniquem]

He's a chronic pessimist like me. It's a Brit thing!

It's the weather!!!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't think anyone had used spin to the extent and with the degree of efficiency that Nadal did beforehand.

I didn't ask that.

Would you, please, answer the question that I actually asked?

 

[Mainad]

It's the weather!!!

Doesn't help, especially at this time of year!

 

[Adv. Edberg]

See post #3376

How do I do that on a phone?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

How do I do that on a phone?

It is not urgent, so you can check it when you are not on your phone.

It is a suggestion for an explanation.

 

[helterskelter]

He was already "majoring in minors" in 1990. AO 1990 was the only tier 1 final he reached. Edberg/Becker/Agassi were the rulers of the game (no Courier yet + of course Sampras "out of the blue" breakthrough at USO)

Ah. I don't read the "tier 1" as meaning very much back then (although it was the first year of the new designation on the ATP Tour). Lendl didn't even play any of Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Canada, Cincinnati, and Stockholm.

Becker had a pretty mediocre year in 1990 in a lot of ways. Had Edberg had a decent run at the US Open rather than losing in round 1 (his loss in round 1 of Roland Garros was forgivable, especially as he played future two-time winner Bruguera) and had Agassi won at least one of the Roland Garros and US Open finals, then I think we'd have had to say that Edberg and Agassi were the two dominant players of the year. Edberg and Agassi played each other in the finals of Indian Wells, Miami, and the World Championships, while Edberg was in the final of the Australian Open and Wimbledon and Agassi in the final of Roland Garros and the US Open. Times were different then and players were more even. But Edberg and Agassi were the players who put in the largest number of consistent results in 1990. Their position as the top two players was partially obscured by:

1) Edberg being injured in the final of the Australian Open and so not winning a match he'd almost certainly have won were he fit.
2) Agassi blowing two major finals that he went into as firm favorite.
3) Edberg losing in round 1 of two majors, one of which he went into on a 21-match unbeaten run and in which he really should have at least made the semis, probably the final, and possibly won.
4) Agassi skipping two majors.

Here's what they did do:
1) Edberg won seven titles (Indian Wells, Tokyo Outdoor, Wimbledon, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Long Island, Paris Bercy) from 12 finals (also Australian Open, Miami, Sydney Indoor, Stockholm, and the World Championships. That gives Edberg two more titles than anyone else and several more finals.
2) Agassi won four titles (San Francisco, Miami, Washington, and the World Championships) from seven finals (also Indian Wells, Roland Garros, and the US Open).

I don't think Edberg and Agassi quite were the two dominant players, but, as I said, had Agassi won Roland Garros or the US Open and Edberg made a deep run at the US Open, then I think there'd be a case for saying that they were.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Vernoiquem has a problem answering a simple question that, on top of everything, falls in the territory of her "favourite" player's style.

Tck, tck.

What an expert.

 

[veroniquem]

Yes, they did in relation to previous generations (more or less at the same time). What we don't see - and likely won't see, since they're all either in their 30's or getting there - is the new generations doing it to them. That's the anomaly I was talking about.

We'll see someone younger taking it to Djoko. I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't.
I don't see any anomaly at all.
I just see furious determination from the (naturally) strong Fedal fan base to not give credit to Djoko for the improvements he's made to his game/athleticism/mentality, for the humongous feat of figuring out 2 greatest players of open era concomitantly (and boy did those 2 guys have a deep reservoir of confidence!) while at the same time managing to keep at bay a very talented and consistent rival of same age (Murray) trying hard to beat Djoko to the punch in becoming the proverbial thorn in the side of the 2 reigning champs.
So Djoko had to battle on 3 fronts at once, something he did masterfully and he deserves all credit for it because I don't think either Fed or Nadal had it quite that tough to assert their own domination in their time (Fed had basket cases Nalby/Safin who had neither the discipline nor work ethics to be consistent threats, an ultra precocious Hewitt who would quickly get bogged down by injury, a Roddick vastly inferior in talent to the previous American generations and Nadal had pretty much only Fed to worry about).
So Djoko's current domination is well deserved and not an anomaly in any way, shape or form. It will follow its due course until someone will counter his game and take charge. All in keeping with traditional tennis history.

 

[veroniquem]

Vernoiquem has a problem answering a simple question that, on top of everything, falls in the territory of her "favourite" player's style.

Tck, tck.

What an expert.

Spit the name out, so I can counter your arguments. Otherwise you're the fool making this big fuss about someone whose name you cannot even provide who "supposedly" would be playing "just" like Nadal. Cool story bro if you can't even tell who that is ha ha.
IMO, Nadal was the first one who took advantage of extreme spin in such a spectacular/effective fashion.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

We'll see someone younger taking it to Djoko. I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't.
I don't see any anomaly at all.
I just see furious determination from the (naturally) strong Fedal fan base to not give credit to Djoko for the improvements he's made to his game/athleticism/mentality, for the humongous feat of figuring out 2 greatest players of open era concomitantly (and boy did those 2 guys have a deep reservoir of confidence!) while at the same time managing to keep at bay a very talented and consistent rival of same age (Murray) trying hard to beat Djoko to the punch in becoming the proverbial thorn in the foot of the 2 reigning champs.
So Djoko had to battle on 3 fronts at once, something he did masterfully and he deserves all credit for it because I don't think either Fed or Nadal had it quite that tough to assert their own domination in their time (Fed had basket cases Nalby/Safin who had neither the discipline nor work ethics to be consistent threats, an ultra precocious Hewitt who would quickly get bogged down by injury, a Roddick vastly inferior in talent to the previous American generations and Nadal had pretty much only Fed to worry about).
So Djoko's current domination is well deserved and not an anomaly in any way, shape or form. It will follow its due course until someone will counter his game and take charge. All in keeping with traditional tennis history.

We'll see. I agree with most of what you said about Djokovic, but I'm still to observe the signs of a serious (and consistent) opposition coming through the ranks. And the big three are already around 30. Compared to previous generations they've had a relatively easy time in their late 20's (having almost exclusively each other to contend with). We'll see what happens.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Spit the name out, so I can counter your arguments. Otherwise you're the fool making this big fuss about someone whose name you cannot even provide who "supposedly" would be playing "just" like Nadal. Cool story bro if you can't even tell who that is ha ha.
IMO, Nadal was the first one who took advantage of extreme spin in such a spectacular/effective fashion.

Kuerten.

 

[veroniquem]

Ah. I don't read the "tier 1" as meaning very much back then (although it was the first year of the new designation on the ATP Tour). Lendl didn't even play any of Monte Carlo, Hamburg, Rome, Canada, Cincinnati, and Stockholm.

Becker had a pretty mediocre year in 1990 in a lot of ways. Had Edberg had a decent run at the US Open rather than losing in round 1 (his loss in round 1 of Roland Garros was forgivable, especially as he played future two-time winner Bruguera) and had Agassi won at least one of the Roland Garros and US Open finals, then I think we'd have had to say that Edberg and Agassi were the two dominant players of the year. Edberg and Agassi played each other in the finals of Indian Wells, Miami, and the World Championships, while Edberg was in the final of the Australian Open and Wimbledon and Agassi in the final of Roland Garros and the US Open. Times were different then and players were more even. But Edberg and Agassi were the players who put in the largest number of consistent results in 1990. Their position as the top two players was partially obscured by:

1) Edberg being injured in the final of the Australian Open and so not winning a match he'd almost certainly have won were he fit.
2) Agassi blowing two major finals that he went into as firm favorite.
3) Edberg losing in round 1 of two majors, one of which he went into on a 21-match unbeaten run and in which he really should have at least made the semis, probably the final, and possibly won.
4) Agassi skipping two majors.

Here's what they did do:
1) Edberg won seven titles (Indian Wells, Tokyo Outdoor, Wimbledon, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Long Island, Paris Bercy) from 12 finals (also Australian Open, Miami, Sydney Indoor, Stockholm, and the World Championships. That gives Edberg two more titles than anyone else and several more finals.
2) Agassi won four titles (San Francisco, Miami, Washington, and the World Championships) from seven finals (also Indian Wells, Roland Garros, and the US Open).

I don't think Edberg and Agassi quite were the two dominant players, but, as I said, had Agassi won Roland Garros or the US Open and Edberg made a deep run at the US Open, then I think there'd be a case for saying that they were.

Becker mostly dominated the indoor season but he also made W final that year (it was the heyday of Becker/Edberg rivalry on grass).
Sorry but tier 1 was every bit as relevant in 1990 as it is now. There is no doubt that the 4 slams and WTF were the most important events already then. Agassi made 2 slam finals and won WTF. Everybody expected him to have his big breakthrough imminently and yeah imo as early as 1990, lendl was already becoming a thing of the past.
I agree about Edberg being the dominant player of 1990: 1 slam title, 3 master titles + another slam and WTF final.

 

[veroniquem]

We'll see. I agree with most of what you said about Djokovic, but I'm still to observe the signs of a serious (and consistent) opposition coming through the ranks. And the big three are already around 30. Compared to previous generations they've had a relatively easy time in their late 20's (having almost exclusively each other to contend with). We'll see what happens.

You are right that today, guys tend to break through at a later age. Look at Raonic, possibly coming into his own only now.
I think if we're gonna talk about luck, Fed's name would have to pop up before Djoko's because as much as Nadal's game gave Fed fits, Nadal was nowhere near dominating hard court until late in his career and Djoko/Murray as hard court specialists would take longer than Nadal to hit their stride, which gave Fed more or less a free pass to a number of hard court titles (the majority surface) before the going would start to get a bit rough (with all of Nadal, Djoko, Murray becoming legit and/or constant challengers)

 

[helterskelter]

Becker mostly dominated the indoor season but he also made W final that year (it was the heyday of Becker/Edberg rivalry on grass).
Sorry but tier 1 was every bit as relevant in 1990 as it is now. There is no doubt that the 4 slams and WTF were the most important events already then. Agassi made 2 slam finals and won WTF. Everybody expected him to have his big breakthrough imminently and yeah imo as early as 1990, lendl was already becoming a thing of the past.
I agree about Edberg being the dominant player of 1990: 1 slam title, 3 master titles + another slam and WTF final.

I exaggerated by saying that Becker's year was mediocre, but I do think that, had Agassi not messed up an eminently winnable Roland Garros final, there'd have been a strong case for saying that Edberg should have been #1 and Agassi #2, with Becker #3, and Lendl #4. I think the thing that stands out to me about Edberg and Agassi that year is that, going into the final, they were probably the most impressive players at each of the four Slams. Edberg was clearly playing better than Becker at Wimbledon and than Lendl at the Australian Open, even though he barely won Wimbledon and didn't win the Australian Open. Agassi was clear favorite for both his finals. So, all I meant to say was that, peaking too soon excepted, Edberg and Agassi dominated the Slams.

Becker did indeed have an excellent indoor season (pair of indoor seasons).

Talking about it reminds me of how bummed out I was that Edberg got injured in the 1990 Australian Open final. I regard his victorious semi-final as one of the best matches of his career, and his form as clearly Slam worthy. Even playing with a fairly serious injury, he still served for a two-set lead at 6-4 6-5 against an opponent who was on good form himself. The US Open first round defeat was also irritating, as he came in on that long run, as I said, and looking like the dominant player, but in retrospect it is more amusing than disappointing. Imagine going unbeaten from the start of Wimbledon all the way to the US Open, winning four straight tournaments, and then losing in straight sets in round 1 of the US Open!

 

[Algo]

Kuerten.

Obviously.

 

[veroniquem]

Kuerten.

Really? Kuerten's career got cut short so quickly though. He didn't really get a chance to establish himself as a trend setter

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Really? Why though? I'm genuinely curious. Look I'm a die hard Fed fan and he can do some serious damage but there's just no way he has the legs to pull off 3 sets on this surface against Novak. It's fun to day dream but in all honesty is this really going to be a match? I mean I could be dead wrong, I'm just curious to know why you're afraid because Novak's pretty much got this in the bag methinks. I could see you being scared at least if was a day match in the hot sun but here what can Federer really do? He ain't 26 anymore, he can't run all day long. So even if he does extremely well to sneak a set, he'll be wasted. That's their rivalry on every slow court since 2013 ish. The only exception I can think of is Monte Carlo 2014.

Maybe I'm crazy but I could envision Fed winning the first two sets and his momentum carrying him thru a 3rd set to a Djoker upset. I don't think its out of the question.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

yeah thats what I kept telling myself when fed would lose to nadal and yet... Granted djokovic isn't quite nadal and I don't think he is quite as big of a thorn if fed's side, but in the past 2-3 years, he's getting there. I'm just not looking to the inevitable gloating should fed lose. (granted you probably feel that way if the reverse happens)

Forgot to mention, the crowds were like 90% maybe even more rooting for fed, at times rather obnoxiously, and djokovic still won. Please don't tease me y'all.

The Djoker fans that are gloating are an embarrasment. No worthwhile poster here takes them seriously.

 

[Doflamingo]

 

[icedevil0289]

The Djoker fans that are gloating are an embarrasment. No worthwhile poster here takes them seriously.

congrats to you btw

 

[3fees]

Jim Courier said it last night interviewing Novak Djokovic,, when the Interview was over, He said "THE GREAT NOVAK DJOKOVIC" I think he knows what he is talking about.


Cheers
3Fees

 

[Adv. Edberg]

It's the weather!!!

I think you're on the money there! Cloudy 95% of the days..

 

[Rina]

Quick question if somebody can help. Why isn't Djokovic-Federer match on replay on ESPN3? And where can I watch it in US if not there?

 

[3fees]

Quick question if somebody can help. Why isn't Djokovic-Federer match on replay on ESPN3? And where can I watch it in US if not there?

Its there espn3,,,
1/28
3:30 AM EST
(1) N. Djokovic vs. (3) R. Federer - Semifinals

Cheers
3fees

 

[Rina]

Thanks. It wasn't there when I checked, maybe it loaded wrong on my laptop.

 

[bobombom]

I'm a neutral in this matchup, bur doesn't Federer always seem a bit timid when he plays with Djokovic? Is a purely a tennis ability thing, or is it a mental thing? Or both?

 

[veroniquem]

Novak Djokovic played great tennis thru the First 2 sets, Third set he started hitting the ball shorter and paid the price with a set loss, 4th set, he got the break and consolidated it to win the match.
Now he has two days rest and waits for the finals opponent he has to beat to lift the 6th AO Title.

Cheers
3Fees

Djoko had a bit of a lull in the 3rd, quite understandably given the level he had maintained for 2 sets. It was all Fed needed to get a bit of confidence and improve his own level (he had been serving poorly in the previous sets).
But in the 4th, Djoko contained Fed's new-found momentum with some magic of his own like we're used to seeing him do after a lapse now.

 

[sbengte]

I'm a neutral in this matchup, bur doesn't Federer always seem a bit timid when he plays with Djokovic? Is a purely a tennis ability thing, or is it a mental thing? Or both?

Started watching tennis 2013 onwards ?

 

[ForumMember]

We'll see someone younger taking it to Djoko. I'd be extremely surprised if we didn't.
I don't see any anomaly at all.
I just see furious determination from the (naturally) strong Fedal fan base to not give credit to Djoko for the improvements he's made to his game/athleticism/mentality, for the humongous feat of figuring out 2 greatest players of open era concomitantly (and boy did those 2 guys have a deep reservoir of confidence!) while at the same time managing to keep at bay a very talented and consistent rival of same age (Murray) trying hard to beat Djoko to the punch in becoming the proverbial thorn in the side of the 2 reigning champs.
So Djoko had to battle on 3 fronts at once, something he did masterfully and he deserves all credit for it because I don't think either Fed or Nadal had it quite that tough to assert their own domination in their time (Fed had basket cases Nalby/Safin who had neither the discipline nor work ethics to be consistent threats, an ultra precocious Hewitt who would quickly get bogged down by injury, a Roddick vastly inferior in talent to the previous American generations and Nadal had pretty much only Fed to worry about).
So Djoko's current domination is well deserved and not an anomaly in any way, shape or form. It will follow its due course until someone will counter his game and take charge. All in keeping with traditional tennis history.

You have overlooked the fact that Nadal and Djokovice are seperated by not even one full year in age. While you decided to bring in Murray in debate because he is of the same age of Djokovic, you exclude both of these when talking about players whom Nadal fought against. Djokovic had arrived comepletely in 2011 and since 2011 theie h2h in majors stand at 4-1 in favor of Nadal.

 

[abmk]

well, that blew ..

1. sh*t serving from federer
2. absolutely awful shot selection ...I can't decide whether the shot selection in this match was worse or that in RG 08 F
3. djokovic playing well, on top of that getting ridiculously lucky with the lines (& the net)

 

[abmk]

2 things I still don't understand :

a) even at this age, federer shouldn't be struggling this much with Novak's weight of shot. He didn't have that much problems dealing with berdych's/dimitrov's weight of shots
b) how djokovic elevated his level to this extent after the last 2 matches ? I mean he did similar in wim 14 and wim 15, but he wasn't playing as badly as he was in the matches before there as he did over here. I mean we all knew he would raise his level for the semi vs federer, but to this extent ?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Maybe I'm crazy but I could envision Fed winning the first two sets and his momentum carrying him thru a 3rd set to a Djoker upset. I don't think its out of the question.

I think his last chance was W 2014. He declining so much faster than Djoko so...

 

[Gary Duane]

2 things I still don't understand :
b) how djokovic elevated his level to this extent after the last 2 matches ? I mean he did similar in wim 14 and wim 15, but he wasn't playing as badly as he was in the matches before there as he did over here. I mean we all knew he would raise his level for the semi vs federer, but to this extent ?

It is a matter of matchup and confidence. Right now Novak knows that he has the advantage against Fed. Fed is 6 years older.

I think his last chance was W 2014. He declining so much faster than Djoko so...

For the record:

I believe there are only two players in the Open ear who won slams past the age of 34:

Gimeno in 1972 and Rosewall in 1970-1972.

Am I missing someone?

In the early 70s pros from the 60s were dominating because amateurs were so much weaker.

Why do people think that Fed, at the age of 34, should still be winning slams???

 

[abmk]

It is a matter of matchup and confidence. Right now Novak knows that he has the advantage against Fed. Fed is 6 years older.

doesn't explain the extent of level of elevation still ...I'm not talking of elevation of level itself ...which is expected

 

[Pagoo]

doesn't explain the extent of level of elevation still ...I'm not talking of elevation of level itself ...which is expected

For what it is worth, there's an article about Djokovic (and others) using the oxygen chamber for recovery after his maatch with Simon. Apparently, it is legal. Obviously, the CVAC explains why he never gets tired. But,coming out and playing like someone possessed every single time in the SF/F,is certainly interesting.

Truth will soon out, I suppose.

 

[abmk]

For what it is worth, there's an article about Djokovic (and others) using the oxygen chamber for recovery after his maatch with Simon. Apparently, it is legal. Obviously, the CVAC explains why he never gets tired. But,coming out and playing like someone possessed every single time in the SF/F,is certainly interesting.

Truth will soon out, I suppose.

the bold part is exactly what I mean.

The level of ballstriking in the 4th R match vs simon and QF vs nishi ...you'd think the djokovic in the SF was an entirely different guy .....

 

[Gary Duane]

doesn't explain the extent of level of elevation still ...I'm not talking of elevation of level itself ...which is expected

I have no idea what you are saying with no caps and no grammar...

 

[ForumMember]

the bold part is exactly what I mean.

The level of ballstriking in the 4th R match vs simon and QF vs nishi ...you'd think the djokovic in the SF was an entirely different guy .....

Happened in Doha as well. Recorded average speed of his groundstrokes was found to be around 9-10% higher than the speed in rest of the tournament.

 

[Pagoo]

the bold part is exactly what I mean.

The level of ballstriking in the 4th R match vs simon and QF vs nishi ...you'd think the djokovic in the SF was an entirely different guy .....

Well, we can only just sit and watch, I guess. Let's see how long he will keep doing this.

 

[Pagoo]

Happened in Doha as well. Recorded average speed of his groundstrokes was found to be around 9-10% higher than the speed in rest of the tournament.

Interesting. So the guy gets more powerful every few days right before facing his main rivals. Hmn!

 

[abmk]

I have no idea what you are saying with no caps and no grammar...

I'm saying what you said about confidence vs Federer would explain elevation of level to some extent, but not to the extent we saw.

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm saying what you said about confidence vs Federer would explain elevation of level to some extent, but not to the extent we saw.

OK.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

It is a matter of matchup and confidence. Right now Novak knows that he has the advantage against Fed. Fed is 6 years older.

For the record:

I believe there are only two players in the Open ear who won slams past the age of 34:

Gimeno in 1972 and Rosewall in 1970-1972.

Am I missing someone?

In the early 70s pros from the 60s were dominating because amateurs were so much weaker.

Why do people think that Fed, at the age of 34, should still be winning slams???

I don't. But this is an unprecedented weak era so it's possible for old relics to win still.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Happened in Doha as well. Recorded average speed of his groundstrokes was found to be around 9-10% higher than the speed in rest of the tournament.

Yep. Remember that as well. Djok is raising his game to 100% against players he can't just normally breeze through. Or when he wants to make an example of somebody. I.e. Nadal.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

2 things I still don't understand :

a) even at this age, federer shouldn't be struggling this much with Novak's weight of shot. He didn't have that much problems dealing with berdych's/dimitrov's weight of shots
b) how djokovic elevated his level to this extent after the last 2 matches ? I mean he did similar in wim 14 and wim 15, but he wasn't playing as badly as he was in the matches before there as he did over here. I mean we all knew he would raise his level for the semi vs federer, but to this extent ?

I think Fed was struggling mentally in this match. He looked lost out there at times. I've rarely seen that when it comes to Fed. He usually always makes the right choices regarding shot selection and net approaches.

Did it have something to do with his spat against Tomic? Tomix said that Fed was a long way from Djoko. Did that get into his head?